feat(posture): add deterministic feedback proposals

Assistant: codex
Assistant-Model: gpt-5.6-sol
Assistant-Session: 01a02929-244b-7391-b933-c04010e8eedb

canon/standards/tenancy-posture_v0.1.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ version: "0.1"
 created: "2026-08-17"
 updated: "2026-08-23"
 scope: multi-tenancy-security-framework
-revision: "draft-13"
+revision: "draft-14"
 owner: net-kingdom
 last_reviewed: "2026-08-23"
 review_interval: 6m
@@ -87,6 +87,11 @@ and the tenant-engine boundary contract, not in the work-factory canon.
   required by §13.2. The claim remains explicitly bounded and freshness-dated:
   the attempted cross-tenant attacks did not work; this is not a universal
   isolation proof.
+- **draft-14** makes evidence freshness and remediation ownership declarable.
+  Adversarial evidence may now carry its observation and expiry timestamps,
+  bounded scope, responsible repository, and replacement action. A separate
+  proposal-only evaluator treats absent authoritative owner or freshness as
+  `unknown`; it does not infer either or mutate the declared posture.
 
 **Reviewed by all six. The score:** six repos found three live defects in their
 own code by reading the ladders — `tenant-engine`'s unfiltered
@@ -826,6 +831,11 @@ declaration but do not replace it. The schema carries `current`, `implemented`,
 `target`, `reviewed`, `review_due`, `gap`, `placement_exceptions`,
 `service_class` (§8.3), per-path detail (§5.2), and provider reachability
 (§5.5), plus the workload identity prerequisite for zone membership (§5.6.2).
+It also permits `responsible_repo` for authoritative posture routing and
+`evidence_freshness` for machine-readable evidence observation, expiry, scope,
+owner, and remediation metadata. Their absence remains valid declaration
+syntax; feedback resolution must report `unknown`, never infer them from a
+directory, service name, or previous owner.
 From the `net-kingdom` repo, owners validate one or more declarations
 with `uv run tools/tenancy-posture/validate.py <path>...`; the validator applies
 the JSON Schema and the evidence, date, implemented/current and provider-range
@@ -1129,6 +1139,22 @@ rather than a green build. Cross-tenant findings are the category external
 testing practice identifies as needing human review. **A passing CI run is not
 E2 evidence.**
 
+**Decision 13.5 — freshness and ownership are explicit inputs.** A declaration
+may attach `evidence_freshness.<level>` to an evidence key. An adversarial entry
+requires `observed_at`, `valid_until`, `responsible_repo`, `scope`, and
+`remediation`; a mechanical entry may omit `valid_until` when the artifact is
+continuously re-established by the referenced revision or CI control. The
+timestamps use RFC 3339 and the responsible repository is the authority for
+replacement evidence.
+
+The feedback evaluator does not parse prose for dates, infer ownership from a
+file path, or silently extend a validity window. A current adversarial claim
+without freshness metadata resolves to **freshness `unknown`**. An expired
+artifact resolves to **freshness `expired`**. Neither automatically rewrites the
+declared level: the evaluator emits a deterministic owner-routed remediation
+proposal so review remains observable and controlled. The proposal contract is
+`posture-feedback_v0.1`; it performs no State Hub write or policy mutation.
+
 | Level | Evidence | Kind |
 |---|---|---|
 | **I2** | Identifiers validated against the vocabulary; rejection test for a malformed id; binding shown to come from a verified token | Mechanical |